Tibet - Ram exposes his intellectual bankruptcy

Mandarin is one the toughest languages in the world and translating works from Mandarin to English is no easy task. That perhaps explains the LiC's delay in coming out with his Tibetan editorial. But when he did, dint he come out with all guns blazing? Though the editorial has already been ripped apart, the bias is simply mind numbing. On April 1, while writing about  SIMI in a misleadingly titled edit (Challenging SIMI's hate politics), the LiC

took pains to make his readers understand why a "section" of the community took to violence. Why is he not bothered about finding why the Tibetans' are up in arms against Chinese rule? The Tibetans complain of brutal oppression, cultural genocide, religious intolerance – complaints far more serious than the "alleged" discrimination and religious bigotry that the LiC claims that the Muslims are facing. There can be no doubt whatsoever in any disinterested mind that the plight of Tibetans under Chinese rule is by far worse than those of Indian Muslims.  However, LiC empathizes with the latter while baying for the former's blood.

 

Let us see the Chindu's stand on the similar conflicts. When it comes to Naxal violence, the paper has often blamed the establishment for not making growth inclusive and thereby providing a fertile ground for the naxalites to recruit young people. So it sees a point in the Naxalites' decision to be up in arms- though it does not explicitly support their violent ways.  In effect , it divides the blame. In Tibet too the natives complain that the rapid development that the LiC was boasting of was serving the Chinese immigrants and not the native Tibetans. We have never heard the Chief demand a brutal crackdown on Naxalites; why does he recommend this treatment for Tibetan protestors? The dirty commie trick of projecting perpetrators as victims was at play in Nandigram and we get a liberal dose of it now as well. There is an astounding denial of the fact that monks (Ram terms them militant monks) have been butchered and that even the slightest form of dissent has been ruthlessly crushed. He claims that the monks rioted and attacked the Chinese migrants. This blog has posted pictures of Chinese soldiers masquerading as monks. How is Ram so sure that these "military monks" will not be among the "militant monks"?

 

 One of Ram's most nauseating arguments is about disproportional use of force especially when it comes to conflicts in West Asia. If Hams kills one Israeli soldier, the Israeli army is expected to measure the latitudinal and longitudinal position of the spot, the victim's height, weight etc etc  and then go to the Palestinian side , locate a person of similar height and weight and kill him? The very purpose of retaliation is to deter further attacks. Instead of issuing "brave" statements describing terrorist as "cowards" and then turning the other way, Israel makes it clear that if you slap me once, you will get 10 in return. Let us for a moment concede that the monks indeed rioted. Why hasn't he raised any question about the severity of the response? Is it proportional? He feels the Chinese have shown "exemplary restraint" and says "it is too much to expect any legitimate government of a major country to turn the other cheek to such savagery and breakdown of public order". Legitimate government? Is the Chinese government a democratically elected government? What is the legitimacy he is talking about? Isn't the Israeli government "legitimate enough" to prevent "savagery and breakdown of public order"? or is such legitimacy conferred only on Communist governments?

Ram has always been an acerbic critic of Israel and has staunchly defended the Palestinian people's right to self determination. But by some strange logic, Israel occupying Palestine is evil, but China occupying Tibet is holy. Palestinians demanding a homeland is legitimate and democratic, but a similar demand from Tibet must be crushed.

 

I have never been clear about  Ram's position on Kashmir. But I have never read him call for a brutal crackdown on Kashmiri separatists. Being a dove, he always advocates peaceful negotiations. Why has he not demanded that China talk to Dalai Lama? He claims China has been talking to him for the past 3 decades , and a few lines later dubs his conditions unacceptable.  

 

 

"The first is his concept of 'high-level' or 'maximum' autonomy in line with the 'one country, two systems' principle. The Chinese government points out that this is applicable only to Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, and that the kind of autonomy that the Dalai Lama demanded in November 2005 cannot possibly be accommodated within the Chinese Constitution. Secondly, the 2.6 million Tibetans in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), which constitutes one-eighth of China's territory, form only 40 per cent of the total population of Tibetans in China. The Chinese government makes the perfectly reasonable point that acceptance of the demand for 'Greater Tibet' or 'one administrative entity' for all 6.5 million ethnic Tibetans means breaking up Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces, doing ethnic re-engineering, if not 'cleansing', and causing enormous disruption and damage to China's society and political system. This demand too is ruled out, as any comparable demand to break up States in India would be."

 

The Dalai Lama has not made an unprecedented demand. He is demanding the status accorded to HK, Taiwan and Macao. Why is this applicable only to these three and not to Tibet? Ram has a brilliant answer- the Chinese constitution does not permit. Well, if need be, won't the Chinese amend the constitution to ban any form of protest by monks in TAR(if such a ban does not already exist). Does Chinese constitution say that the constitution must not be amended? The Indian constitution says Arunachal is an integral part of India. Will Ram support a belligerent Indian stand on Arunachal since the Indian constitution clearly states Arunachal is Indian territory? Writing a lame editorial on the puppet Minister's Chinese visit, Ram termed the border issue a problem "left over by history" and advised a policy of "give and take". If anything it is the Tibet issue that is left over by history and this is the issue that needs a give and take approach.

Second, what is the point in comparing the second demand to break up of Indian states? Even then, did not states like Jharkhand, Uttaranchal and Chhattisgarh get created breaking bigger states? Citing such absurd reasons , he rules out these demands and then claims China has been talking to the Dalai Lama!

 

Perhaps the only conflict in which Ram has openly sided with the government is in Sri Lanka. But one cannot compare apples with oranges. LTTE is a terrorist organization that has been banned in many countries. But the Tibetans aren't terrorists. By taking such a dangerously foolish stand on the Tibet issue, comrade Ram has yet again exposed his intellectual bankruptcy. Will someone remind him that he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones?